America the first communist power; cultural effects on the global communist movement & the perception of Marxism

[OrcaBattalion]

Let's say the United States undergoes a socialist revolution sometime between 1918 to 1936, and is the first and main communist power, sponsoring socialism worldwide in a similar manner to the USSR historically, because for whatever reason, the Russian Revolution does not happen. What is the ATL change in the "culture" of global Marxism and the perception of communist governments, especially in the non-communist world?

I don't think its controversial to claim that Marxism, as it was practiced in the 20th century, and as it was perceived throughout the globe, both inside of and outside of the "communist movement," owed a lot of its thought and subculture to Russian culture and statesmanship. But the U.S has a completely different culture, with a completely different form of government to Tsarist Russia, and a different history. So what does Marxism look like here? What do Marxist parties look like?

If trappings of the old U.S government style are maintained, are federal presidential republics more popular among the left and viewed as a model to emulate?
Is American Marxism humanist, and relatively liberal in the broad scheme of things? (Marxist humanism a la the Johnson-Forrest Tendency in the U.S.)
How does the individualist ethos effect the perception of communism politically? Is there an emphasis in the U.S on Marx's ideas of the "free association of individuals" and less of an emphasis on historical phases and determinism? (Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man Under Socialism")
Are unions viewed as being more radical due to the history of industrial unionism in American Marxism?
If anti-Washington communism develops (anti-Stalinist/Leninist OTL) what does it look like, philosophically and politically?

Things along that line, and anything else relevant you can think of!

 

[Sam R.]

American socialism was quite, uh, sectarian. Probably because the stakes were so low. (Compare: academic departmental fights.) The individualist ethos is significantly a product of the 20th century. It probably doesn't reach its height.

 

[OrcaBattalion]

The individualist ethos is significantly a product of the 20th century. It probably doesn't reach its height.

I don't think this is accurate. Homegrown American radicalism, even of the anti-capitalist variety (Spooner et al) was quite concerned with the defense of individual rights and attacking the system from a perspective that emphasized the, freedom of the individual. America was the first truly classically liberal society, and that seeped into every facet of its culture, I don't see that fading away from the cultural makeup of the United States even if it adopts a philosophically non-individualist ethos like Marxism.

American socialism was quite, uh, sectarian.

Socialism was excessively sectarian wherever it reared its head, nothing specific to America about it, and American socialism wasn't any more especially sectarian than other nations at the time. It's also important to remember much of the socialist sectarianism you're thinking about was an effect of the Russian Revolution and the divides in the left it created. That isn't relevant in the scenario I'm positing.

 

[Dan1988]

There's two forks through which Marxism could possibly attempt to adapt to American conditions, both of which would assume the existing prior characteristics of socialist movements. One of them is an authoritarian one (which I plan to use for my own *USSA TL), which has plenty of precedent - much of what the USSR ultimately practiced, in terms of economics and social organization, had its parallels in the Technocracy movement as it was developing before Howard Scott took things his own way, as well as Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist Clubs he inspired through his novel, Looking Backward. If a more Latin American direction could do (particularly if the Banana Wars get reinvented as a spreading of the world socialist revolution), Auguste Comte and positivism could also help as a form of heterodox glue. Another fork, towards a more democratic option, we've probably already seen in Reds! and all that, but there are probably other ways of getting a democratic Marxist *Communism if the US is the first power. A humanistic, liberal Marxism could try to take root, but it would run into the problem that the US was a fundamentally conservative country and there are several elements of Marxism which simply would not work in an American environment because those elements would be better suited to European conditions that Marx and Engels were far more familiar with.

One common thread that will be common to both authoritarian and democratic Marxism, Yankee-style, is that both would be horrendously racist towards black people, Native Americans, and certain other ethnic groups (stemming back to Marx and Engels being very racist towards Latin Americans as a whole and condemning them to only reaching as far as the capitalist stage of development and nothing more), so that would be one big blind spot that would limit *Marxism's attractiveness outside of North America. On one level, it could be seen as a continuation of the individualist ethos, balanced with collective responsibility, that has always existed to some degree in the US. On another level, considering The Revolution (TM) would kinda sorta have happened as Marx and Engels predicted, by happening in an industrialized country, that would basically lock socialism out of the Global South by having it as something that cannot be attained unless one was a colonial power. In that case, other alternate socialist philosophies more palpable for the Global South, or even nominally-Marxist parties in the Global South trying to find a shortcut to reaching that same level (by hook or by crook), could take root. At the same time, if the US continues to muck about in Latin America as it did IOTL, then Marxism would soon be discredited in Latin America and other ideas, even offbeat ersatz Marxism-without-Marx, would be created.

 

[LNSS]

The Trade Unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World were a lot bigger and powerful in America than in Russia, so you'd see them having a bigger role. The other big force was the Socialist Party of America, who were more into Orthodox Marxism. These were generally at odds.

Also look into Daniel Deleon, he advocated for an alliance and dual action between the Party and the Trade Unions, basically use the Party to seize political power through the electoral process, and then the Trade Unions would seize economic power with the patronage of the Party-in-Power.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

There's two forks through which Marxism could possibly attempt to adapt to American conditions, both of which would assume the existing prior characteristics of socialist movements. One of them is an authoritarian one (which I plan to use for my own *USSA TL), which has plenty of precedent - much of what the USSR ultimately practiced, in terms of economics and social organization, had its parallels in the Technocracy movement as it was developing before Howard Scott took things his own way, as well as Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist Clubs he inspired through his novel, Looking Backward. If a more Latin American direction could do (particularly if the Banana Wars get reinvented as a spreading of the world socialist revolution), Auguste Comte and positivism could also help as a form of heterodox glue. Another fork, towards a more democratic option, we've probably already seen in Reds! and all that, but there are probably other ways of getting a democratic Marxist *Communism if the US is the first power. A humanistic, liberal Marxism could try to take root, but it would run into the problem that the US was a fundamentally conservative country and there are several elements of Marxism which simply would not work in an American environment because those elements would be better suited to European conditions that Marx and Engels were far more familiar with.

One common thread that will be common to both authoritarian and democratic Marxism, Yankee-style, is that both would be horrendously racist towards black people, Native Americans, and certain other ethnic groups (stemming back to Marx and Engels being very racist towards Latin Americans as a whole and condemning them to only reaching as far as the capitalist stage of development and nothing more), so that would be one big blind spot that would limit *Marxism's attractiveness outside of North America. On one level, it could be seen as a continuation of the individualist ethos, balanced with collective responsibility, that has always existed to some degree in the US. On another level, considering The Revolution (TM) would kinda sorta have happened as Marx and Engels predicted, by happening in an industrialized country, that would basically lock socialism out of the Global South by having it as something that cannot be attained unless one was a colonial power. In that case, other alternate socialist philosophies more palpable for the Global South, or even nominally-Marxist parties in the Global South trying to find a shortcut to reaching that same level (by hook or by crook), could take root. At the same time, if the US continues to muck about in Latin America as it did IOTL, then Marxism would soon be discredited in Latin America and other ideas, even offbeat ersatz Marxism-without-Marx, would be created.

Weren't American Communists traditionally pro racial equality?

 

[OrcaBattalion]

There's two forks through which Marxism could possibly attempt to adapt to American conditions, both of which would assume the existing prior characteristics of socialist movements. One of them is an authoritarian one (which I plan to use for my own *USSA TL), which has plenty of precedent - much of what the USSR ultimately practiced, in terms of economics and social organization, had its parallels in the Technocracy movement as it was developing before Howard Scott took things his own way, as well as Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist Clubs he inspired through his novel, Looking Backward. If a more Latin American direction could do (particularly if the Banana Wars get reinvented as a spreading of the world socialist revolution), Auguste Comte and positivism could also help as a form of heterodox glue. Another fork, towards a more democratic option, we've probably already seen in Reds! and all that, but there are probably other ways of getting a democratic Marxist *Communism if the US is the first power. A humanistic, liberal Marxism could try to take root, but it would run into the problem that the US was a fundamentally conservative country and there are several elements of Marxism which simply would not work in an American environment because those elements would be better suited to European conditions that Marx and Engels were far more familiar with.

One common thread that will be common to both authoritarian and democratic Marxism, Yankee-style, is that both would be horrendously racist towards black people, Native Americans, and certain other ethnic groups (stemming back to Marx and Engels being very racist towards Latin Americans as a whole and condemning them to only reaching as far as the capitalist stage of development and nothing more), so that would be one big blind spot that would limit *Marxism's attractiveness outside of North America. On one level, it could be seen as a continuation of the individualist ethos, balanced with collective responsibility, that has always existed to some degree in the US. On another level, considering The Revolution (TM) would kinda sorta have happened as Marx and Engels predicted, by happening in an industrialized country, that would basically lock socialism out of the Global South by having it as something that cannot be attained unless one was a colonial power. In that case, other alternate socialist philosophies more palpable for the Global South, or even nominally-Marxist parties in the Global South trying to find a shortcut to reaching that same level (by hook or by crook), could take root. At the same time, if the US continues to muck about in Latin America as it did IOTL, then Marxism would soon be discredited in Latin America and other ideas, even offbeat ersatz Marxism-without-Marx, would be created.

I agree with some of the things here but heavily disagree with others. Most notably the racial attitudes. Research into the American communist movement shows that they were probably the most racially progressive faction of white Americans at the time, especially vis a vis black on white relations; a communist revolution isn't going to turn the U.S into a post-racial paradise but Jim Crow segregation is going to end, neo-Confederate apologia is going to end (especially because Marx was a huge Union fanboy and covered the war extensively from a pro-Union perspective), cross-racial unionism is going to be fundamentally necessary.

That's not to say there won't be preferential treatment, often unspoken and subtle, for white Americans. That's also not to say there won't be stereotypes about blacks that pervade society and other hang-ups, but in general, the worst excesses of white American racism toward black Americans are, much like the first Civil War, going to be solved by bullet and barricade and Yankee commisars in the second. I don't see the reputation of communism suffering because of this, if anything, communism will be viewed as the "fix" to the racism of the former republic.

Where I agree racial attitudes won't change, however, is in regards to indigenous Americans. Indigenous lifestyles are antithetical to the "march of history" that communism represents, arguing about historical ethnic claims to land ownership etc directly contradicts the idea of socializing all land into a communal repository for the whole of the working class & the "right to self-determination" that came out of the Russian experience was historically contingent on the conditions of the Russian Empire being truly multi-ethnic in a way the U.S wasn't and was hugely controversial within Marxist circles at the time. I can even see, in the second civil war that would be necessary to implement a communist government, natives siding with the non-communist forces which might just invite even more suspicion and violence on their doorstep. Cynically, I don't think the international world will care a whole lot how the Navajo and Co are treated, at least not until the 60s and 70s. American Indian civil rights movements might be more influential once that time rolls around however.

Your point about Marxism succeeding in a fully industrialized country is an interesting one. You're right, that's where Marx predicted socialism to succeed. But at the same time America has, even without socialism, been interested in decolonization, so I can still see Marxism making inroads into the Global South out of America's commitment to seeing the end to European Empires; however this would initially likely be informed by the history of not the Second but the First American Revolution of 1776-1783, with the truly anti-colonial elements of Marxism being espoused by Global South Marxist figures that America is funding in brushfire guerrilla wars against European Empires (should Europe itself remain capitalist).

Lastly, its important to remember that American conservatism is fundamentally a liberal conservatism; humanism is definitely related to liberalism in a broad sense so I'm not sure that Americans say, being opposed to gay marriage, would necessarily stop American Marxism from having a humanist orientation, at the very least in rhetoric; its common to say one thing, and do the other.

 

[OrcaBattalion]

Weren't American Communists traditionally pro racial equality?

Yes, they were, the American communist movement was racially integrationist and American communists were among the most ardent supporters of black civil rights, much of the early 20th century civil rights movement was actually operated and funded by U.S communist groups. They were also pro-immigrant. As far as their record on natives, it doesn't seem they talked much about it as far as I can find, so I feel I'm safe in my assumption that treatment of natives wouldn't change really and could even become more contentious with issues around land rights and tribal self-government.

The Trade Unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World were a lot bigger and powerful in America than in Russia, so you'd see them having a bigger role. The other big force was the Socialist Party of America, who were more into Orthodox Marxism. These were generally at odds.

Also look into Daniel Deleon, he advocated for an alliance and dual action between the Party and the Trade Unions, basically use the Party to seize political power through the electoral process, and then the Trade Unions would seize economic power with the patronage of the Party-in-Power.

Yeah, industrial unionism was ridiculously popular in the U.S and even many of the Marxists, as you point out, tended to use it as an organizing vehicle for "seizing power" from the capitalist class. Unions might be viewed as much more revolutionary in general owing to the success of the second American Revolution, in which unions would play a big role.

 

[Libertad]

Let's say the United States undergoes a socialist revolution sometime between 1918 to 1936, and is the first and main communist power, sponsoring socialism worldwide in a similar manner to the USSR historically, because for whatever reason,

Are you aware of the Turtledove awardee Reds! the Revolutionary Timeline from this site? It has three threads in here. It even has a fanfic thread. Its current iteration is no longer updated here in AH, but in Sufficient Velocity. The AH version will be updated at a later time though according to Aelita.

The interesting part though is that the Bolshevik Revolution still happened there, which is not your premise here. That's an entirely different route to take, though and may be harder to pursue because revolutionary Marxism only got popular due to the Bolsheviks. Most Marxists before 1917 are largely of social democratic orientation and were reformists with few exceptions being the Russian Bolsheviks and the American Socialist Labor Party and sections of the Socialist Party of America.